Download - Equality joshua ingalls
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
1/54
EQUALITY, NO. I.
____________________
LORD! who shall abide in thy tabernacle?Who shall dwell in thy holy hill?He that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousness,He that doeth no evil to his neighbor,He in whose eyes a vile person is contemned,He that putteth not out his money to USURY.King David.1
______
THE BANKING SYSTEM.
WHEN a certain number of persons desire to be incorporated as a banking
company, they petition the legislature of the state in which they reside, praying
for such privilege. If the prayer be granted, they are incorporated; and the
amount of their capital is fixed in the act of incorporation. This sum is divided into
shares; public notice is given; books are opened for subscription; and individuals
subscribe for as many shares as they desire, and are able to take. The
subscribers are called Stockholders, and the shares are called Stock. When the
necessary amount has been subscribed, the stockholders meet, and choose,
from their number, certain persons to conduct the operations of the bank who are
called Directors. The Directors then choose from their own number, a President,
and some person, not of their number, to be Cashier. Upon the President and
Cashier (under the control of the board of Directors) the active duties of
conducting the affairs of the bank depend.
1 Psalms 19:15
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
2/54
Banks prevent competition among Capitalists.
So far all is clear: but certain consequences follow necessarily whenever a
bank is established;what are these consequences? Answer for yourself,
reader! Would not the stockholders, if no bank had been established, have
remained individual capitalists, competing with each other in the market? Would
not this competition have had the effect of depressing the rate of interest? But
now, through the establishment of this bank, these capitalists, by uniting their
interests, have escaped competition, and all its attendant effects. The capitalist is
unquestionably benefitted; but he appears to be benefitted at the expense of the
borrower. At first sight, therefore, it would appear that banks are established for
the exclusive benefit of the lenders. Let us examine this matter, however, a little
more carefully. Competition is natural to man. Every blow aimed at competition,is a blow aimed at liberty and equality; for competition is but another name for
that liberty and equality which ought to exist in every manufacturing and
commercial community. In the natural order, the borrowers compete with each
other, and thus raise the rate of interest; meanwhile the lenders, by competition
among themselves, depress that rate. By the establishment of a bank, the
lenders prevent competition among themselves, and thus prevent a fall in the
rate of interest; it is evident, therefore, that the borrower could obtain money on
better terms if the bank did not exist.
A laborer who has no tools, no raw materials to work upon, can bring little,
or rather nothing, to pass, no matter how industriously he may follow his calling;
he seeks therefore, first of all, to obtain tools and the raw material; that is, he
endeavors to find some capitalist who will lend him the money requisite for the
purchase of these things. The capitalist, on the other hand, finds his money to be
of little use to him so long as he cannot lend it out at interest;his machinery and
raw material will spoil on his hands if he can find no laborer who will make them
available for useful purposes. The capitalist and the laborer are mutually
necessary to each other; and, for this reason, they are always seeking eachother. Banks (according to the true theory of such institutions) ought to be
established for the purpose of bringing together the borrower and lender, the
laborer and the capitalist. Whoever has anything to lend, ought to be able to go
to the bank, and there lend it, provided there is some person in the community
who desires to borrow; and borrowers ought to have like facilities. So much for
theory; what is the fact?
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
3/54
Banks organize inequality between the borrower and the lender.
Banks are instruments whereby the lenders escape their fair share of the
general competition: they are instruments whereby a certain number of lenders
are enabled to bring an immense, combined, and crushing force to bear upon
every person who does not belong to their number. A bank is a model equality, a
model community, a model fraternity, if we consider the stockholders only; but it
is a horrible inequality, if we consider it in its relations to the mass of the people.
Banks confer exclusive privileges upon a certain class. Every unprivileged
member of the community operates in his own strength; but the stockholder in a
bank operates with the whole strength of the corporation. These stockholders
mutually insure each other; for, when the bank makes a bad speculation, the lossis equitably divided among all. There is equity among themselves; but woe to him
that is on the outside! The unprivileged individual lies awake nights, thinking of
his liabilities; he labors hard to bring his affairs to a prosperous issue. The
stockholder in the bank folds his hands, and sleeps soundly; he is insured from
loss, and has hired the officers of the bank to think and be anxious for him. If
operatives combine with each other, because they find competition bears too
strongly upon them, and strike for higher wages, they may render themselves
legally liable to severe punishment: but, if capitalists combine to prevent
competition among themselves, and thus prevent a fall in the price of the
commodity they have to offer in the market, the legislature applauds their action,
and grants them a charter to enable them to accomplish their purpose more
easily and effectually. It is affirmed, nevertheless, that we live in a country of
equal laws. If it is for the good of the community that laborers should compete
among themselves, it is equally for the good of the community that the capitalists
should compete in like manner; at least, so it would appear.
Banks of Discount.
Banks of Discount obtain profits (1) from interest on notes discounted. This
is the great source of their revenue. You go to the bank and offer your note,
payable after a certain lapse of time; if the bank considers you, or your indorsers,
good, and believes the note will be paid, the officers will give you the money
borne on the face of your note, deducting from it interest for the time the note has
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
4/54
to run. This deduction is called the discount. All this appears very fair. We have
seen, however, that in the natural order, the borrower and lender meet on equal
terms, since they are equally necessary to each other:You are obliged,
nevertheless, to ask the bank to grant you a discount as a favor; you are liable to
insult from the bank officials if you happen to be a poor man; you will oftentimes
get no discount if you do not belong to some particular political party, or,
perhaps, to some particular social clique, or attend some particular church. You
will oftentimes be required to leave on deposit in the bank, ten per cent, of what
you draw; thus you will be forced to pay illegal interest. The bank has the
advantage of you in every way; for you are dealing with a hundred stockholders,
who, by combination, have escaped all the effects of competition among
themselves, while you stand in your unassisted individual strength;and your
strength is evidently weakness. The bank decides on your claims arbitrarily, andyou have no remedy. On your part, you are subject to human feeling; the conduct
of the bank toward you may give rise in your heart to hope, fear, joy, or
mortification; but, on the part of the bank, there is the insensibility of a body
without a soul.
Banks separate between the borrower and the lender.
We have said that banks ought to bring the lender and borrower together;
but they never perform this office; and here lies the greatest evil of the whole
system. It is the stockholder who is the lender; the bank officer is but an agent.
The borrower comes to the bank, his mind filled with anxiety; he is thinking of his
wife and children, and is depressed in consequence of reflection on the state of
his business; he knows he can give good security for all he wishes to borrow, but
fears his offer will be rejected. The lender, instead of meeting this trembling,
anxious human being on equal terms as a human being, sends the remorseless
engine which is called a bank, to transact the business for him, and in his stead.
Deposits.
Banks of Discount obtain profits (2d) from deposits. You deposit your money
in a bank, and the bank lends your money, and receives interest upon it. All
interest received in this way is divided among the stockholders; no part of it is
given to you, although you ought to have the whole, (except so much as would
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
5/54
pay the officers of the bank for their trouble,) since you bear all the risk. Thus
banks obtain profits by receiving interest on your money; they make it at your
expense and at your risk.
Exchanges.
Banks of Discount obtain profits (3d) from exchange. But it is difficult to see
how any money can be made in this way if no recourse is had to fraud. The rate
of exchange can never rise above the cost of the transportation of specie,
including the insurance: if the bank charges more than this, with perhaps a slight
addition to pay for the trouble, it charges too much. But banks sometimes make
money by the following method:You go to the bank and ask a discount on your
note: you are answered that the bank cannot spare any money, but that you canhave a draft on some specified city: you know that exchange is against that city,
and that you will be obliged to sell the draft at a loss if you take it: nevertheless,
you take it, because you are pushed for money. Thus the bank charges you
interest to the full amount, although it knows the draft to be not worth what it
purports on its face to be worth. Perhaps the bank refuses to discount for you if
you do not consent to pay some artificial rate of exchange. Perhaps an agent of
the bank follows you into the street, and buys back the draft at a discount, so that
no transaction in exchange really takes place at all.
Banks enable certain persons to live without producing.
Banks can add nothing to the capital of a country; though they may augment
the private fortunes of those interested in them. Banks enable lenders to live
without working. If there were no banks, the capitalist would become acquainted
with the laborer to whom he lends money: he would be obliged to understand the
order of business: he would naturally seek out and encourage industrious and
honest laborers, giving them facilities; for thus he would in create and secure hisown income. By being interested in a great many operations, he would become
capable of giving advice and instruction to artisans and mechanics, and thus he
might render himself the most useful member of the community; thus all would be
enabled to labor to a more effectual purpose. If there were no banks, the (mere)
capitalist would unfold his hands, would become human, would have a feeling for
common accidents and infirmities: he would no longer isolate himself from
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
6/54
mankind; he would no longer feel that no evil could come near him; he would no
longer make it his pride to cultivate a patrician haughtiness. calculated to give
him an immediate ascendancy over all who approach him. But the (mere)
capitalist is now so secure, he is so well protected by the banking system, that
nothing can come near him without his permission. He has no favor to ask of any
one, and every body has favors to ask of him. His merit is considered so great by
the human race, because he accumulated a fortune in some past time, that he
receives (what Socrates demanded for himself) a support at the public expense.
He is never called upon to spend a dollar of the fortune he accumulated; he is
never called upon to raise his hand for any useful purpose; he is never called
upon to exert his mind to look narrowly after his affairs; on the contrary, an
arrangement is made by which the public indirectly pay the officers of a bank for
furnishing him semiannually, without trouble or anxiety to himself, with a certainamount of money, in a fixed proportion to the fortune he is not called upon to
spend; and he lives upon the money which he thus receives, so long as he
condescends to exist among men upon the surface of the earth.
We think we are justified in drawing the conclusion that banks operate,
practically, to enable the few to bring the many under tribute. So far as the
community is concerned, banks do, in practice, cover nothing but conspiracies
and combinations to defraud the public. No: the word defraud is too severe; for
the stockholders in the banks are as honest as the common run of men;
nevertheless, we know of no other English word which properly characterises the
practical operation of the banking system.
Banks of Circulation.
But to proceed with our remarks: a bank may issue bills to the amount of its
whole capital, and the bill-holders be perfectly safe. Indeed, they may be doubly
secured. First, there is specie enough in the vaults of the bank to redeem all the
bills, and, secondly, the bills were issued in exchange for notes by whichresponsible individuals bound themselves to pay sums of money to the bank,
equivalent to the value they received in bank bills. No bank bill can honestly get
into circulation, except in exchange for a note binding the person who receives it
from the bank for its amount. Now it is found that a bank can issue bills to a far
greater extent than the value of the specie in its vaults, and still redeem every
bill, at sight, in specie. For, while one person presents a bill and demands specie,
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
7/54
some other person will probably be depositing specie in the bank: besides, it is
almost impossible that the bills would all require to be paid at the same instant.
From these reasons combined, it is evident that the bank may, without violating
its obligation to redeem in bills in specie at sight, issue a larger amount of them
than it contains specie in its vaults. Every bank which thus issues its bills to an
amount greater than that of the specie in its vaults, is called a Bank of
Circulation. If it keeps within the amount of the specie it has on hand, it is not a
bank of circulation, for its bills are mere specie checks. Banks in Massachusetts,
that have a capital of $100,000 are empowered to issue bills to the amount of
$125,000: and other banks may issue bills in the same proportion to the amount
of their capital. They are permitted, also, by law, to loan money to the extent of
double the amount of their capital.
All this, again, presents a very fair appearance, as indeed everything doesconnected with the system of banking; but what are the facts? First of all, the
banks seldom have more than one fifth part of their capital on hand in specie;
and therefore they would find it impossible to fulfill the solemn promises borne on
their bills, if there should be a run upon them for specie, for a single day. But this
is a very common place criticism; let us examine the matter more carefully.
Bank Bills drive the precious metals out of circulation.
Money is a commodity whose value is regulated like that of every other
commodity, by the ratio of the supply to the demand. Gold and silver possess a
value which is determined by the relation of the supply of the precious metals to
the demand for them in the market of the world. When gold and silver become
scarce in any country, the demand for them increases; their price rises; a given
quantity of the precious metals will buy more of other commodities than it would
have done before the rise; that is, the prices of other commodities fall.
Merchants, finding the prices of commodities to be less at home than abroad, will
export their goods, exchanging them for the precious metals: thus gold and silverwill be imported, and this importation will continue until the currency of the
country is restored to the level of the currency of the world. The cheapest
commodity is always exported; if the precious metals are cheapest, merchants
exchange their goods for them, and send the specie to some market where it will
command a better price; and there they exchange it for commodities which
command a good price at home. Where there is no tampering with the currency,
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
8/54
the balance of trade takes care of itself. But if some of our banks once issue bills
to an amount beyond the amount of specie in their vaults, the dollar immediately
falls in value, because there is more than the proper amount of money in the
country. Money becomes the cheapest commodity, and is of course, immediately
exported. But what sort of money is it that is exported? bank bills?Not at all.
Bank bills are worth little or nothing in the market of the world. It is the gold and
silver, therefore, which is exported. As soon as a quantity of specie is exported
sufficient to cause a reinstatement of the value of money, the banks issue more
bills, and a further exportation of specie takes place. At last, the currency of the
country is composed entirely of paper, with the exception of the small quantity of
gold and silver which is requisite for the purposes of making change. The banks
are careful always to have bills enough in circulation to keep money plenty; that
is, to keep gold and silver cheap. Thus the banks protect themselves against allforeign competition; for the foreigner cannot afford to bring his silver dollar into a
market where it will at once depreciate in value. Do you say, that we go too far,
that we affirm a power in the banks which they do not possess in relation to this
exclusion of foreign competition? Do you say that the value of money is
determined by the rate of interest it bears, and that the debasement of the
currency, by the issue of bank bills, does not therefore exclude foreign
competition ? We ask, then, what explanation you give of the remarkable fact
that capitalists obtain only two and three per cent. interest for their money in
Europe, while they might receive six per cent. for it here, and yet that they never
enter our market in competition with the banks? The foreigner, it is true,
sometimes invests money in our banks; but does he ever compete with them?
We confess that the discount the foreigner is obliged to pay, when he brings his
dollar into the market, is not directly charged, and that the process of the
extortion is not evident at first sight. The foreigner brings his money, if he brings it
all, in gold and silver, and loans it out at six per cent. interest, say on six month's
notes. As soon as the money goes out of his hands, it leaves the country,
because specie is at a premium for exportation. When the six months expire, hisdebtors pay him all they owe him, with the interest; but in what do they pay him?
in gold and silver? Not at all: they pay him in the local currency of the country;
they pay him in the bills of the banks of issue; and these banks, from that
moment forward, grind him between their millstones, even as they do the rest of
the community. He has a large claim against the banks; he presents it, and
demands specie: if the banks are alarmed by the amount of the claim, they
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
9/54
suspend specie payments. The sympathy of the public is altogether on the side
of the banks; for was not the suspension brought on by the necessity of
contending against foreign capital? The people are innocent, and believe
whatever the banks tell them. They seldom reflect that every dollar brought into
the country creates the competition among capitalists, thus raising the rate of
wages, and benefiting the working man. Specie payments are however, seldom
suspended to protect the banks against foreign capital; for the foreigner knows
his own interest, and is too wise to exchange his specie for paper promises.
The way the system works.
Let us sum up the results of our investigation. 1. Capitalists, by combining
with each other to form a bank, destroy competition among themselves. 2.Through the power of their organization, they bear with their united weight upon
every individual with whom they have dealings. On the side of the bank, there is
a small army, well equipped, well officered, and well disciplined; on the side of
the community, there is a large, undisciplined crowd, without arms, and without
leaders. Society is a contest between a large number of sheep who are entirely
disconnected with each other, and a small number of wolves who meet every
Saturday afternoon to confer upon the internal affairs of the common lupine
interest. 3. But the capitalists are not satisfied yet; they have protected
themselves in every possible way against competition among themselves; but
they are afraid that some one will come in from without to compete with them and
lower the rate of interest. They therefore petition the legislature, and obtain
permission to exert a power which ought never to be exercised by the
government itself. Do they ask permission to coin money? No; they are not so
modest as that: they ask permission to create paper money that shall be
equivalent to specie; they ask the privilege of having it recognised that a piece of
paper coming from their hands, shall be worth as much as a silver dollar coming
from the hands of any other person. After thus debasing the currency, they haveno longer anything to fear from competition.
Now the banks have everything in their hands. They make great issues, and
money becomes plenty; that is, all other commodities become dear. Then the
capitalist sells what he has to sell, while prices are high. The banks draw in their
issues, and money becomes scarce, that is, all other commodities become
cheap. The community is distressed for money, individuals are forced to sell
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
10/54
property to raise moneyand to sell at a loss on account of the state of the
market: then the capitalist buys what he desires to buy, while everything is
cheap. The banks have control over every dollar in every private man's pocket;
for, by a large issue, it can make money plenty, and thus diminish the value of
money throughout the community. The capitalist trades for the dollar which is in
the pocket of the private man, and receives it from him at its depreciated value.
Immediately the bank draws in its issues, and the value of money is increased;
but the dollar is now in the hands of the capitalist, who sells it to his former owner
at its increased value. The operation of the banking system is evident; it is said,
nevertheless, that banks are established for the convenience of the community!
______
THE USURY LAWS.
ALL usury laws appear to be arbitrary and unjust. The rent paid for the use
of lands and houses is freely determined in the contract between the landlord
and tenant; freight is settled by the contract between the shipowner and the
person hiring of him; profit is determined in the contract of purchase and sale:
but, when we come to interest on money, all principles seem suddenly to change;
here the government intervenes, and says to the capitalist, "You shall, in no,
case take more than six per cent. interest on the amount of principal you loan. If
competition among capitalists brings down the rate of interest to three, two, or
one per cent., you have no remedy; but if, on the other hand, competition
between borrowers forces that rate up to seven, eight, or nine per cent., you are
prohibited, under severe penalties, from taking any advantage of the rise." Where
is the morality of this restriction? So long as the competition of the market is
permitted to operate without legislative interference, the charge for the use of
capital in any of its forms will be properly determined by the contract between the
capitalist and the person with whom he deals. If the capitalist charges too much,the borrower obtains money at the proper rate from some other person. If the
borrower is unreasonable, the capitalist refuses to part with his money; and
money can always be invested somewhere, for there is always a demand for
capital. If lands, houses, bridges, canals, boats, wagons, are abundant in
proportion to the demand for them, the charge for the use of them will be
proportionally low; if they are scarce, it will be proportionally high. Upon what
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
11/54
ground can you justify the legislature in making laws to restrict a particular class
of capitalists, depriving them invidiously of the benefit which they would naturally
derive from a system of unrestricted competition? If a man owns a sum of
money, he must not lend it for more than six per cent. interest; but he may buy
houses, lands, ships, wagons, with it; and these he may freely let out at fifty per
cent., if he can find any person willing to pay that rate! Is not the distinction drawn
by the legislature arbitraryand therefore unjust? A man wishes to obtain certain
lands, wagons, &c., and applies to you for money to buy them with; you can lend
the money for six per cent. interest, and no more; but you can purchase the
articles the man desires, and let them out to him at any rate of remuneration
upon which you mutually agree. Every sound argument in favor of the
intervention of the legislature to fix by law the charge for the use of money, bears
with equal force in favor of legislative intervention to fix by law the rent of landsand houses, the freight of ships, the hire of horses and carriages, or the profit on
merchandise sold. We conclude, therefore, that legislative interference fixing the
rate of interest by law, is both impolitic and unjust.
Effect of the Repeal of the Usury Laws.
But let logic have her perfect work. If one arbitrary act of the legislature is
impolitic and unjust, every other similar legislative act is equally impolitic, equally
unjust. Suppose the usury laws were repealed to-day, would justice prevail to-
morrow? By no means. The government says to me, "I leave you and your
neighbor to compete with each other; fight out your battles among yourselves; I
will have nothing more to do with your quarrels." I act upon this hint of the
legislature, I enter into competition with my neighbor:but I find the government
has lied to me; I find the legislature has no intention of letting us settle our
quarrels between ourselves; far from it; when the struggle attains its height,
behold! the government quietly steps up to my antagonist, and furnishes him with
a bowie knife and a revolver. How can I, an unarmed man, contend with one towhom the legislature gratuitously furnishes bowie knives and revolvers? In fact, I
enter the market with my silver dollar, while you enter the market with your silver
dollar, my dollar is a plain silver dollar, nothing more and nothing less; but your
dollar is something very different, for, by permission of the legislature, you can
issue bank bills, to the amount of one dollar and twenty-five cents, and loan
money to the extent of double your capital. I tell my customer that I can afford to
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
12/54
lend my dollar, if he will return it after a certain time, with four cents for the use of
it, but that I cannot lend it for anything less; you come between me and my
customer, and say to him, I can do better by you than that; don't take his dollar
on any such terms, for I will lend you a dollar, and charge you only three cents for
the use of it. Thus you get my customer away from me. And the worst of it is that
you still retain another dollar to seduce away the next customer to whom I apply.
Nay, more, when you have loaned out your two dollars, you still have twenty-five
cents in specie in your pocket, to fall back upon and carry to Texas, in case of
accident; while I, if I succeed in lending my dollar, must go without money until
my debtor pays it back. Yet you and I entered the market, each with a silver
dollar;how is it that you have thus obtained the advantage over me in every
transaction? The banking privilege which the government has given you is a
murderous weapon against which I cannot contend.
The Usury Laws are necessary under present Circumstances.
A just balance and just weights! Very well; but if we have an unjust balance,
is it not necessary that the weights should be unjust also. A just balance and
unjust weights give false measure; and just weights with an unjust balance give
false measure in like manner; but an unjust balance and unjust weights may be
so ad-just-ed as to give true measure. Under our present system, the lender who
is not connected with the banks, is oppressed; but the usury laws (unjust as they
are when considered without relation to the false system under which we live)
afford some protection, at least to the borrower. They are the false balance
which, to a certain extent, justifies the false weights. In our opinion, it would be
well to have a just balance, and just weights: that is, it would be well to repeal the
usury laws, and to abolish the power possessed by the banks of issuing paper
money. But it will not do to put new wine into old bottles; nor to mend old
garments with new cloth. When you lend me two dollars, while you own only one,
you get twice the interest you are actually entitled to, on the capital you own.Insist, if you will, upon retaining your peculiar privileges, but consent, in the name
of moderation and justice, to let me protect myself by the usury laws; for they are
not very severe against you after all. The usury laws confine you to six per cent.
interest on whatever you loan; but as the banking laws enable you to loan twice
as much as you own, you obtain twelve per cent. interest on all the capital you
really possess. You cannot complain that in your case the usury laws violate the
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
13/54
right of property; for you own only one dollar, and yet receive interest, and
transact business, as though you owned two dollars. The usury laws are
necessary, not to interfere in your right to your own property, but to limit you in
the abuse of the unjust and exclusive privileges granted you by the legislature.
We look upon the antagonism between the usury and the banking laws, as a
division of Satan against Satan, and trust that through their internal conflict and
opposition, the infernal kingdom may one day be brought to destruction.
Argument in Favor of the Repeal of the Usury Laws.2
But let us now examine the great argument in favor of the immediate repeal
of the usury lawsan argument which, according to those who adduce it, is in
every way unanswerable. It is said that all the above considerations, thoughimportant, and certainly to the point, ought to have very little weight in our minds,
and that for the following reason:Men do, notwithstanding the present laws,
take exorbitant interest; and, whatever usury laws may be passed, they will
continue so to do. If it be acknowledged that it is wrong to take too high interest,
that acknowledgment will not help the matter; for, though we acknowledge the
wrong, we are impotent to prevent it. The usury laws merely add a new evil to
one that was bad enough when it was alone. Without a usury law, men will take
too high interest; for they have the power to do it as credit is now organized; and
no legislation can prevent them: with a usury law, they will continue to take unjust
interest, and will have recourse to lies and fraudulent proceedings to evade the
law. If the taking of too high interest be an evil, is it not a still greater evil for the
community to demoralize itself by evading the laws? to demoralize itself by
allowing individuals to have recourse to subterranean methods to accomplish the
end they are determined to accomplish at all events,an and which they cannot
accomplish in the light of day, because of the terror of the law? Thus argue the
advocates of immediate repealand with much show of reason. There are a
hundred ways in which the usury laws may be evaded, of which the followingmay serve as an example:A borrower is willing to give twelve per. cent. per
annum for the use of money; so he agree to give $112 at twelve months credit for
stock worth in the market only $100. A broker finds a lender who has money but
no stock, and manages the negotiation. The borrower buys the stock from the
2 Compare Edward Kellogg, Labor and Other Capital (1849), 225-229.
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
14/54
lender, and gives for it his note for $112, payable in twelve months. The reader
will perceive that the real existence of the stock is not at all necessary in this
transaction. For a further description of this method of taking illegal interest under
the cover of a purchase and sale, the reader is referred to the eighth letter of
Blaise Pascal to a Provincial, where it is treated under the name of contract
Mohatra. Such transactions are evidently illegal, but cases rarely occur in which
an appeal is made to the law. The opponents of the usury laws say that all this
bears hard on the borrower, who has not only to pay the broker for his services,
but also to pay the capitalist for the risk he runs in entering into an illegal
transaction; they say that the borrower has to pay also for the wear and tear of
the lender's conscience; and, according to them, all these conditions go to raise
the rate of interest. As for the immorality of such transactions, as for the
immorality of the state of society in which such transactions are inevitable, as forthe wear and tear of conscience, we freely admit it all; nevertheless we are not
prepared to acknowledge either the necessity, or the propriety, of the immediate
repeal of the usury law.
Power of Capital in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We think few persons are aware of the power of capital in this
Commonwealth. According to a pamphlet, published a year or two ago,
containing a list of the wealthy men of Boston, and an estimate of the value of
their property, there are 224 individuals in this city who are worth in the
aggregate, $71,855,000: the average wealth of these individuals would be
$321,781. It is generally supposed that this estimate is below, rather than above,
the truth. In this pamphlet, no estimate is made of the wealth of any individual
whose property is supposed to amount to less than $100,000. Let us be
moderate in our estimates, and suppose that there are, in all the towns and
counties in the State (including Boston), 3000 other individuals who are worth
$30,000 each; their aggregate wealth would amount to $90,000,000. Add this tothe $71,855,000 owned by the 224 men, and we have $161,855,000 These
estimates are more or less incorrect, but they give the nearest approximation to
the truth that we can obtain at the present time. The assessors' valuation of the
property in the State of Massachusetts in 1840, was $299,880,338:we find,
therefore, by the above estimates, that 3,224 individuals own more than half of all
the property in the State. If we suppose each of these 3,224 persons to be the
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
15/54
head of a family of five persons, we shall have in all 16,120 individuals. In 1840,
the State contained a population of 737,700. Thus 16,120 persons own more
property than the remaining 721,580: that is, three persons out of every hundred,
own more than the remaining ninety-seven: to be certain that we are within the
truth, let us say that six out of every hundred, own more property than the
remaining ninety-four. These wealthy persons are connected with each other;
indeed they are organized by the power of the banks; and we think (human
nature being what it is) that their organization would be brought to bear still more
powerfully upon the community if the usury laws were repealed. These persons
might easily obtain complete control over the banks. They might easily so
arrange matters as to allow very little money to be loaned by the banks to any but
themselves; and thus they would obtain the power over the money market which
a monopoly always gives to those who wield it,that is, they would be able toask and obtain, pretty much what interest they pleased for their money. There
would then be no remedy: the indignation of the community would be of no avail.
What good would it do you to be indignant? You would go indignantly, and pay
exorbitant interest, because you would be hard pushed for money. You would get
no money at the bank, because it would be all taken up by the heavy capitalists
who control those institutions, or by their friends: these all get money at six per
cent. interest, or less; and they would get from you precisely that interest which
your necessities might enable them to demand. The usury laws furnish you with
some remedy for these evils; for, under those laws, the power of demanding and
obtaining illegal interest will be possible only so long as public opinion sees fit to
sanction the evasions of the law. As long as the weight of the system is not
intolerable to the community, every thing will move quietly; but, as soon as the
burthen of illegal interest becomes intolerable, the laws will be put in force in
obedience to the demand of the public, and the evil will be abated to a certain
extent. We confess that it is hard for the borrower to be obliged to pay the broker,
to pay also for the wear and tear of the lender's conscience: but we think it would
be worse for him if a few lenders should obtain a monopoly of the market. And,when the usury laws are repealed, what earthly power will exist capable of
preventing them from obtaining this monopoly? But here an interesting question
presents itself: What is the limit of the power of the lender over the borrower?3
3 This section begins with an uncredited borrowing from Kellogg (1849), 110. The pamphlet
is apparently Our First Men (1846).
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
16/54
Actual Value and Legal Value.*
Let us first explain the difference between legal value and actual value. It is
evident that if every bank bill in the country should suddenly be destroyed, no
actual value would be destroyed except perhaps to the extent of the value of
so much waste paper. The holder of the bill would lose his money; but the bank
would gain the same amount, because it would no longer be liable to be called
upon to redeem its bills in specie. Legal value is the legal claim which one man
has upon property in the hands of another. No matter how much legal value you
destroy, you cannot by that process banish a single dollar's worth of actual value;
though you may do a great injustice to individuals. But if you destroy the silver
dollars in the banks, you inflict a great loss on the community, for an importationof specie would have to be made to meet the exigencies of the currency, and this
importation would have to be paid for in goods and commodities which are of
actual value.When a ship goes down at sea with her cargo on board, so much
actual value is lost. But, on the other hand, when an owner loses his ship in
some unfortunate speculation, so that the ownership passes from his hands into
the hands of some other person, there may be no loss of actual value, as in the
case of shipwreck; for the loss may be a mere change of ownership.4
The national debt of England exceeds $4,000,000,000. If there were enough
gold sovereigns in the world to pay this debt, and these sovereigns should be laid
beside each other, touching each other, and in a straight line, the line thus
formed would be much more than long enough to furnish a belt of gold extending
round the earth. Yet all this debt is mere legal value. If all the obligations by
which this debt is held were destroyed, the holders of the debt would become
poorer by the amount of legal value destroyed, but those who are bound by the
obligations (the tax-paying people of England) would gain to the same amount.
Destroy all this legal value, and England would be as rich after the destruction as
it was before, because no actual value would have been affected: the destructionof the legal value would merely cause a vast change in the ownership of
property, making some classes richer, and, of course, others poorer to precisely
* The reader is requested to notice this distinction between actual and legal value, as weshall have occasion to refer to it again.
4 See Kellogg (1849), 38.
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
17/54
the same extent. But if you should destroy actual value to the amount of this
debt, you would destroy about thirteen times as much actual value (lands,
houses, products of labor, &c) as exists at present in the State of Massachusetts.
The sudden destruction of $4,000,000,000 worth of actual value would turn the
British Islands into a desert. Many persons are unable to account for the
persistency of the government of England. That secret is as follows:The whole
property of England is taxed yearly, say three per cent., too pay the interest of
the public debt; the amount raised for this purpose is paid over to those who own
the obligations which constitute this legal value. The people of England are thus
divided into classes: one class is taxed, and pays the interest on the debt; the
other class receives the interest, and lives upon it. The class which receives the
interest knows very well that a revolution would be followed by either a
repudiation of the national debt; this class knows that the nation would be nopoorer if the debt were repudiated; it knows that a large portion of the people look
upon the debt as being the result of aristocratic perversity in carrying on
aristocratic wars, for the accomplishment of aristocratic purposes: when,
therefore, the government wants votes, it looks to this privileged class; when it
wants orators and writers, it looks to this same class; when it wants special
constables to put down insurrection, it applies to this same class. The people of
England pay yearly $120,000,000, the interest of the debt, to maintain a
conservative class, whose function it is to prevent all change, and therefore all
improvement, in the condition of the empire The owners of the public debt, the
pensioners, the holders of sinecure offices, the nobility and the established
church, are the bands of Spartans who rule over the English Laconians, Helots
and Slaves. When such powerful support is enlisted in favor of an iniquitous
social order, there is very little prospect left of any amelioration in the condition of
the people.5
The Matter brought nearer Home.
But let us bring the matter nearer home: the assessors' valuation of the
property in the State of Massachusetts in 1790, was $44,024,349. In 1840, it was
$299,880,338. The increase, therefore, during fifty years, was $255,855.989.
This is the increase of actual value. If now the $44,024,349, which the State
5 Kellogg (1849), 38-39.
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
18/54
possessed in 1790, had been owned by a class, and had been loaned to the
community on six months' notes, at six per cent. interest per annum, and the
interest as it fell due, had itself been continually put out at interest on the same
terms, that accumulated interest would have amounted in fifty years to
$885,524,246 This is the increase of the legal value. A simple comparison will
show us that the legal value would have increased three times as fast as the
actual value has increased. We must deduct, however, from this increase, the
cost of the subsistence, for the mean time, of the holders of legal value: but we
have no means of estimating this total cost. Let us make this matter, therefore
still plainer by an illustration:6
Suppose 5,000 men to own $30,000 apiece: suppose these men to move
with their families, to some desolate place in the State, where there is no
opportunity for the profitable pursuit of the occupations either of commerce,agriculture or manufacturing. The united capital of these 5,000 men would be
$150,000,000. Suppose now this capital to be safely invested in different parts of
the State. Suppose these men to be each of them, heads of families, comprising,
on an average, five persons each; this would give us in all, twenty five thousand
individuals. A servant to each family would give us 5000 persons more, and
these, added to the above number, give us 30,000 in all. Suppose, now, that
5,000 mechanicshatters, shoemakers, bakers, butchers, &c., should settle with
their families in the neighborhood of these capitalists, in order to avail themselves
of their custom. Allowing five to a family, as before, we have 25,000 to add to the
above number. We have, therefore, in all, a city of 55,000 individuals, established
in the most desolate part of the State. The people in the rest of the State, have to
pay to the capitalists in this city, six per cent. of $150,000,000 every year: for
these capitalists have this amount out at interest on bond and mortgage, or
otherwise. The yearly interest on $150,000,000, at 6 per cent. is $9,000,000.
These wealthy individuals do no useful work whatever, and, nevertheless, levy a
tax of $9,000,000 per annum, on the population of the State. This tax is paid in
this way:some money is brought to this city, and some produce; the produce issold for money to the capitalists; and, with the money thus obtained, added to the
other; the debtors would pay the interest due. The capitalists have their choice of
the best the State produces, and the mechanics of the city, who receive money
6 Kellogg (1849), 109-110; "The Progress of Wealth in Massachusetts, from 1790 to 1840,"Hunt's Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, May 1847, 435-444.
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
19/54
from the capitalists, have the next choice. Now, how would all this be looked
upon by the people of the Commonwealth? There would be a general rejoicing
over the excellent market for produce which had grown up in so unexpected a
place; and the people would suppose the existence of this city to be one of the
main pillars of the prosperity of the State. Meanwhile, each of these capitalists,
after one or two years (for he would first be obliged to pay for his house, &c.,)
would receive yearly $1800, the interest on $30,000, on which to live. Suppose
that he lives on $900, the half of his income, and lays the other half by, to portion
off his children as they come to marriageable age, that they may start also with
$30,000 capital, even as he did. This $900, which he lays by every year, would
have to be invested. The men of business, the men of talent, in the State, would
see that it was well invested for him. Some intelligent man would discover that a
new rail-road, canal, or other public work was needed: he would survey theground, draw a plan of the work, and make an estimate of the expenses; then be
would go to this new city, and interest the capitalists in the matter. The capitalists
would furnish money, the people of the State would furnish labor: the people
would dig the dirt, hew the wood, and draw the water. The intelligent man who
devised the plan, would receive a salary for superintending the work, the people
would receive day's wages, and the capitalists would own the wholefor did they
not furnish the money that paid for the construction? Taking a scientific view of
the matter, we may suppose the capitalists not to work at all; for the mere fact of
their possessing their money, would insure them all these results. We suppose
them, therefore, not to work at all; we suppose them to receive, each of them,
$1,800 a year: we suppose them to live on one-half of this, and to lay up the
other half for their children. We suppose new married couples to spring up in
their proper season out of these families, and that these new couples start also
each with a capital of $30,000. We ask nowIs there no danger of this new city's
absorbing into itself the greater portion of the wealth of the State?7
Suppose, when Virginia was settled in 1607, England had sold the whole
territory of the United States to the first settlers for $1,000, and had taken amortgage for this sum on the whole property:$1,000 at 7 per cent. per annum,
on half yearly notes, the interest collected and re-loaned as it fell due, would
7 Kellogg (1849), 91-93
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
20/54
amount, in the interval between 1607 and 1850, to $16,777,216,000. All the
property in the United States, several times told, would not pay this debt.8
If the reader is interested in this matter of the comparative rate of increase
of actual and legal value, let him consult the treatise of Edward Kellogg on "Labor
and other Capital," where he will find abundant information on all these points.9
How many farmers are there who can give six per cent. interest, and
ultimately pay for a farm they have bought on credit?
The answer.
What answer, then, shall we return to our question relating to the power of
the lender over the borrower? We are forced to answer that the borrower is
virtually, according to appearances, under the complete control of the lender. Aconsiderable time may elapse before this control is actually as well as virtually
established; but as the ship in the eddy of the maelstrom is bound to be
ultimately engulphed, so the producer of actual value (if no change is introduced
in our social relations) is bound to be brought into ultimate complete subjection to
the holder of legal value.
______
EQUAL LAWS AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAWS.
IT is right that all persons should be equal before the law: but when we have
established equality before the law, our work is but half done. We ought to have
EQUAL LAWS also. Of what avail is it that we are all equal before the law, if the law
is itself unequal.
When two men compete with each other, and one receives a personal
privilege from the legislature, thus obtaining an advantage over his competitor,
these men are unequal before the laws. If the legislature grants an act ofincorporation to a company, and in that act gives the company special privileges,
the legislature establishes an unequal law, though it does not make men unequal
8 Kellogg (1849), 115.9 Labor and Other Capitalincludes numerous tables showing the workings of interest in the
accumulation of wealth. Kellogg's writings, and a close comparison of his Safety Fund withGreene's Mutual Bank, will be collected in a later volume in the Blazing Star Library.
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
21/54
before this law. Men are not unequal before this law, because they are all equally
free to purchase stock in this incorporated company, and because they may all
compete for a share in the privilege granted by the legislature. The laboring man,
who earns a dollar a day, has a right to buy this stock, though the shares cost
$1000 apiece: his right to buy is equal to that of the capitalist who has the ability
to purchase a share. But the legislature determines, by this act of incorporation,
that a privileged class shall exist, that inequality shall be established, though it
leaves admission into the favored class open to free competition. Thus all are
equal before the law; but the law itself is unequal, since it establishes inequality.
What right has the legislature to turn God's footstool into a lottery, even though it
give a ticket, and an equal chance to every member of the community? What
right has the legislature to turn this world into a lottery where some may indeed
draw prizes, but where, for every prize drawn by a fortunate person, a multitudemust necessarily draw blanks? Would it not be better to permit each individual to
receive neither more nor less than the just reward of his labor? This world, as it
was first created, was not a lottery; neither did its Maker ever intend that it should
become such. The law that makes the world a lottery, is an unequal law; for it
establishes inequality: and the fact that all men have tickets, does not remedy the
difficulty; for it only gives all men an equal chance in the lottery which establishes
equalityit only makes all men equal before a law which is itself unequal. But we
speak altogether too favorably of the existing system. It is not true that every
individual has a ticket and an equal chance; besides, there seems to be, at the
present time, a certain slight of hand exercised in turning the wheel.
Equality, Justice, and Charity.
We propose no violent remedy for this evil: we recommend no destructive
process. We call for nothing but the establishment of justicethe establishment
of equal laws. What is justice in human relations if not the organization of
equality? We know that men are not equal in physical strength, beauty andstature: we know they are not equal in intellectual power; we know that as the
stars differ from each other in glory, so men differ among themselves. We would
not equalize all fortunes: we would not take the honest earnings of the
industrious and prudent portion of the community, and divide them among the
imbeciles and scoundrels. What then do we mean by this word equality? We
should say that the terms equality and justiceare convertible, were it not that
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
22/54
justice seems to exclude the element of charity. Nevertheless we would be
satisfied with the organization of justice on the earth, and would be willing to call
that the organization of equality. We demand, therefore, equal laws, as well as
equality before the law.
We are in favor of equality against privilege; for a privilege is an unjust
advantage which one man or class, has over the rest of the community. We invite
the reader, therefore,if he thinks we have talked reasonablyto look about
him, and oppose firmly, to the extent of his ability, every special privilege, every
inequality, that attract his notice.
The Privilege of Usury.
We do not know how to give expression to the thought which now restsupon our mind. No person can respect the rights of property more than we do. If
we have said anything against those rights, our statements were unphilosophical,
and we will ourselves refute them as soon as they are pointed out to us. But
there is such a thing as false property. We have yet to learn that the rights of
property legitimate USURY: we have yet to learn that because a man owns
money, houses, and lands, he has a rightwithout working himself, and without
spending any portion of his possessionsto live upon the labor of his neighbors.
A man is rich who is able to supply himself with such of the necessaries and
comforts of life as he may require. This definition seems to us to be correct. Let
us now give another definition, which shall be as false as this one is true.
A man is rich who is in possession of property for the use of whichhe can
obtain, without working, the necessaries and comforts of life. This is a definition,
not of a rich man, but of a usurer. A usurer obtains the necessaries and comforts
of life (without manual, or other useful, labor on his part) by receiving them from
some producer who pays them over to him for the use of his property. And,
meanwhile, the usurer spends no part of his capital. A rich man, according to the
views of many, is one who can live without working, and yet, at the same time,spend no part of his fortune: but he who neither labours, nor spends his own
money, must live on the labor of others. What else is it possible that such a man
should live upon? Does he live upon the product of his past labour? No; for the
wealth he now possesses, and which he has a right to spend, but which he does
not spend, pays him for all his past labour. Let him spend that, if he wishes to live
without labour. But perhaps his capital labours for him? That is false. Nothing
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
23/54
labours but God, living men, and living animals, tamed by men; the producer who
labours for the usurer, supports him; and the usurer lives upon the labour of this
producer.
Let the reader now give a conscientious answer in his own mind to this
question:what difference is there, as far as mere morality is concerned,
between the false profits of property, and the earnings of the highway robber?
When a man acquires a valuable article without giving an equivalent for it, there
is a plain English word that characterizes his action. Highway robbers and pirates
were once respectable characters. There was indeed a time when they were the
most refined members of the community: in the early ages of Greece, they were
called heroes. The history of the world reveals to us the spectacle of the human
race hunting down the practice of robbery. One generation holds a certain
profession in high repute, the next generation consigns the practitioners of thatprofession to the public prison. Nimrod, Theseus, David, the most respectable
gentlemen of their day, were robbers by open force and fraud. Pocket picking,
cheating, abuse of confidence, &c. were imposed as a duty upon the children of
noble Spartan families by the laws of Lycurgus, because such practices tend to
brighten the faculties of young people. At the present time we commend those
who are always able to got the best at a bargain; for the public conscience has
not yet assigned a name to this faculty. Who has not a lurking contempt for any
individual that may be easily cheated? Usury is now in high honour. The
profession is respectable and legal. We confess, that if we owned money (and
we wish we might own some) we should put it out at usury. We freely
acknowledge that we cheat every day, and that we should be obliged to move
out of the world if we refused to take undue advantage of our neighbours. Yet we
are no worse than those with whom we deal. Let us endeavor, in view of these
things, to prevail upon our legislators to so organize society that we be able not
only to live, but also to preserve our self-respect! Our remarks condemn society,
and not individuals.
An Illustration.
Let us conclude this article by an illustration. Let us make a supposition
which shall be a sort of imitation, or rather abstract, of one made by Henri de
Saint Simon:Suppose the commonwealth of Massachusetts should lose
suddenly, by death, its fifty best surgeons, its fifty best physicians, its fifty best
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
24/54
mathematicians, its fifty best machinists, its fifty best engineers, and so on
through the whole list of poets, painters, musicians, farmers, merchants,
manufacturers of cotton and woolen goods, &c. &c.what a wail of desolation
would go up toward heaven! What consternation would seize upon the
community!
Now let us make another supposition. Suppose the State preserves all the
men of genius in science, commerce, mechanical skill, the fine arts, &c., which it
now possesses, but that it should be called upon to part with the 1000 of its
proprietors, who have the most money out at interest. Without doubt, the people
would be very much affected by the loss of so many distinguished citizens: but
the sudden disappearance of all these persons, reputed the most important in the
State, would cause a sentimental evil only, without occasioning any serious
inconvenience to society. For it would be very easy to fill the places that wouldthus become vacated. It would be easy to find 1000 other citizens, willing to take
upon themselves the labour of receiving the interest of the money which our
supposition leaves without present owners.
It must be stated, however, in qualification, that many of the 1000
proprietors who have the most money out at interest, are also, at the same time,
merchants, physicians, house-builders, officers of manufacturing. companies,
&c., so that the evil resulting to society from their sudden death, would be partly
real and partly sentimental, so far as these persons are merchants, physicians,
manufacturers, &c., the loss to the community would be a real, perhaps
irremediable evil; but so far as they are mere loaners of money, the loss would
occasion but a very slight inconvenience; for they cannot carry their money
(which is in this case the important matter) to the next world with them. Capital is
very useful; but society can afford to spare the mere capitalistthat is, the
capitalist who, by means of his capital, levies a tax on the community; that is,
again, the capitalist who assists in the general consumption, without assisting in
the general production.
______
THE CURRENCY.
Gold and Silver are peculiarly adapted to act as a circulating medium. They
are (1) admitted by common consent to serve for that purpose, (2) they contain
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
25/54
within themselves, actual intrinsic value, equivalent to the sum which they
circulate, as security against the withdrawal of this consent, or of the public
estimation, (3) they lose less by wear and tear, and by the effect of time, than
almost any other commodities, and (4) they are divisible into all, and any, of the
fractional parts into which value may be, or necessarily is, divided. There is no
occasion to notice particularly, in this place, the many other advantages
possessed by the precious metals.
The nature of Money.
But we must remember, that when we exchange any thing for specie, we
barter one commodity for another. By the adoption of a circulating medium we
have facilitated barter, but we have not done away with it, we have not destroyedit. Specie is a valuable commodity, and its adoption by society as a medium of
exchange, does not destroy its character as a purchaseable and saleable article.
Let Peter own a horse, let James own a cow and a pig: let James's cow and
pig, taken together, be worth precisely as much as Peter's horse: let Peter and
James desire to make an exchange: now what shall prevent them from making
the exchange by direct barter? Again, let Peter own the horse, let James own the
cow, and let John own the pig. Peter cannot exchange his horse for the cow,
because he would lose by the transaction; neitherand for the same reason
can he exchange it for the pig. The division of the horse would result in the
destruction of its value;the hide, it is true, possesses an intrinsic value, and a
dead horse makes excellent manure for a grape vine; nevertheless, the division
of a horse results in the destruction of its value as a living animal. But if Peter
barters his horse with Paul for an equivalent in wheat, what shall prevent him
from so dividing his wheat as to qualify himself to offer to James an equivalent for
his cow, and to John an equivalent for his pig? If Peter trades thus with James
and John, the transaction is still barter, though the wheat serves as currency, and
obviates the difficulty in making change. Now if Paul has gold and silver todispose of, instead of wheat, the gold and silver are still commodities possessing
intrinsic value, and every exchange which Paul makes of these for other
commodities, is always a transaction in barter. There is a great deal of
mystification connected with the subject of money, but if we remember that when
we sell anything for money, we buythe money, and that, when we buy anything
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
26/54
with money, we sell the money, our ideas will grow wonderfully clear. All
legitimate trade is barter.
The disadvantages of a specie currency.
The governments of the different nations have made gold and silver a legal
tender in the payment of debts:does this legislation change the nature of the
transactions where gold and silver are exchanged for other desirable
commodities? Not at all. Does it transform the exchange into something other
than barter? By no means.But the exchangeable value of any article depends
upon its utility, and the difficulty of obtaining it. Now the legislatures, by making
the precious metals a legal tender, enhanced their utility in a remarkable manner.
It is not their absolute utility, indeed, that is enhanced, but their relative utility inthe transactions of trade. As soon as gold and silver are adopted as the legal
tender, they are invested with an altogether new utility. By means of this new
utility, whoever monopolises the gold and silver of any country (and the currency,
as we shall soon discover, is more easily monopolised than any other
commodity), obtains control thenceforth over the business of that country; for no
man can pay his debts without the permission of the monopoliser the article of
legal tender. Thussince the courts recognize nothing as money in the payment
of debts except the article of legal tenderthis person is enabled to levy a tax on
all transactions except such as take place without the intervention of credit.
When a man is obliged to barter his commodity for money, in order to have
money to barter for such other commodities as he may desire, he at once
becomes subject to the impositions which moneyed men know how to practice
on one who wants, and must have, money for the commodity he offers for sale.
When a man is called upon suddenly to raise money to pay a debt, the case is
still harder. Men whose property far exceeds the amount of their debts in value
men who have much more owing to them than they owe to othersare daily
distressed for the want of money, for the want of that intervening medium, which,even when it is obtained in sufficient quantity for present purposes, acts only as a
mere instrument of exchange.
By adopting the precious metals as the legal tender in the payment of debts,
society confers a new value upon them, which new value is not inherent in the
metals themselves, but is conferred upon them by the action of society. This new
value becomes a marketable commodity. Thus gold and silver become a
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
27/54
marketable commodity as (quoad) a medium of exchange. This ought not so to
be. This new value has no natural measure, because it is not a natural but a
social value. This new social value is inestimable, it is incommensurable with any
other known value whatever. Thus money, instead of retaining its proper relative
position, becomes a superior species of commoditysuperior not in degree, but
in kind. Thus money becomes the absolute king, and the demi-god, of
commodities. Hence follow great social and political evils. The medium of
exchange was not established for the purpose of creating a new, inestimable,
marketable commodity, but for the single end or purpose, of facilitating
exchanges. Society established gold and silver as an instrument to mediate
between marketable commodities, but what new instrument shall it create to
mediate between the old marketable commodities and the new commodity which
it has itself called into being? and if it succeed creating such new instrument,what mediator can it find for this new instrument itself etc.? Here the gulf yawns!
No bridge, save that of usury, has been thrown, as yet, over this gulf. Our
exposition is evidently on the brink of the infinite series; we are marching rapidly
toward the abyss of absurdity. The logicians know well what the sudden
appearance of the infinite series in an investigation signifiesit signifies the
recognition of a phenomenon and the assigning to it of a mere concomitant, to
stand to it in the place of cause. The phenomenon we here recognise, is
circulation or exchange; and we ignore its cause, for we endeavor to account for
it by the movement of money, which movement is neither circulation nor the
cause of circulationbut more of this hereafter. Let us return to the subject with
which we are more immediately concerned, noting, meanwhile, that a specie
currency is an absurdity.
The evils of a specie currencyUsury.
Society established gold and silver as a circulating medium, in order that
exchanges of commodities might be facilitated: but society made a mistake in sodoing; for, by this very act, it gave to a certain class of men the power of saying
what exchanges shall, and what exchanges shall not, be facilitatedby means of
this very circulating medium The monopolizers of the precious metals have an
undue power over the community; they can say whether money shall, or shall
not, be permitted to exercise its legitimate functions. These men have a vetoon
the action of money, and therefore on exchanges; and they will not take off their
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
28/54
vetountil they have received usury, or, as it is more politely termed, interest on
their money. Here is the great objection to the present currency. Behold the
manner in which the absurdity inherent in a specie currencyor, what is the
same thing, in a currency of paper based upon speciemanifests itself in actual
operation! The mediating value which society hoped would facilitate exchanges,
becomes an absolute marketable commodity, itself transcending all reach of
mediation. The great natural difficulty which originally stood in the way of
exchanges, is now the private property of a class; and this class cultivate this
difficulty, and make money out of it, even as a farmer cultivates his farm, and
makes money by his labor. But there is a difference between the farmer and the
usurer; for the farmer benefits the community as well as himself, while every
dollar made by the usurer, is a dollar taken from the pocket of some other
individual, since the usurer cultivates nothing but an actual obstruction.
The monopoly of the currency.
Let us make a simple estimate of the amount of the circulating medium, in
order that we may learn the limit of the power of the moneyed class. Let us
suppose each individual in the state of Massachusetts, man, woman, or child, to
possess ten dollars in specie, or in the notes of specie paying banks. This is a
very extravagant supposition; but we make a high estimate, as the greater
amount of the circulating medium, the less will be the force of our argument
against the currency. The population of Massachusetts in 1840 was 737,700. If
every individual possesses ten dollars, the total amount of the circulating medium
in the state, is $7,377,000. Now there are 224 persons in the city of Boston, who
are worth in the aggregate, $71,855,000, which is property to the value of some
eight to ten times the value of the whole circulating medium. Let us suppose that
there are, in the whole state, 224 individuals who are able to hold desirable real
estate, houses, &c., to the value of $7,377,000, (the amount of the whole
circulating medium) ready for any immediate operation. If these 224 mencombine together for the purpose of bringing the whole property of the State
($299,880,338) under their control, they can accomplish their object by the
following simple method:Let them sell their desirable real estate, to an amount
of $7,377,000, taking a mortgage on the property, the mortgages to be
foreclosed, and the debt to be paid, all on a certain day. As this specified day
approaches, all the debtors will endeavor to raise money; for money is the only
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
29/54
legal tender in the payment of debts; and, consequently, money will rise rapidly in
value. Money will be gradually bought up out of circulation, to meet these debts;
and, of course, all trade, all exchanges, will be gradually blocked up. When these
debts are paid, (and they evidently will not all be paid) almost all the money in the
state in will be in the hands of the 224 confederates. But the other ordinary debts
in the state, which arise naturally, will have to be paid also, and money, the only
legal tender, will be required in order to their payment. But, as no money will be
obtained, these debtors will fail; and their property will be sold to satisfy their
creditors. But who will buy this property? Who besides the 224 confederates will
have any available funds? The 224 confederates, by their operation,
notwithstanding the losses they will inevitably meet with, will obtain control by
means of their $7,377,000, of the greater part of the property of the state
($299,880,338). There is no danger that so extensive an operation will ever takeplace, for transactions like this would convulse society to its foundations, and
would necessarily be accompanied by revolution, anarchy, and blood-shed: but
similar operations on a smaller scale, are taking place every day.
You cannot monopolize corn, iron, and other commodities, as you can
money; for, to do so, you would be obliged to stipulate, in your sales, that
payment shall be made to you in those commodities. What a commotion would
exist in the community if a company of capitalists should attempt permanently to
monopolize all the corn or iron! But money, by the nature of the case, since it is
the only legal tender, is ALWAYS monopolised. This fact is the foundation of the
right of society to limit the rate of interest.
We conclude, therefore, that gold and silver do not furnish a perfectmedium
of circulation, that they do not furnish facilities for the exchange of all
commodities. Gold and silver have a value as moneya value which is artificial,
and created unintentionallyby the act of society establishing the precious metals
as a legal tender. This new artificial value overrides all intrinsic actual values, and
suffers no mediation between itself and them. Now money, so far forth as it is
mere money, ought to have NO VALUE; and the objection to the use of theprecious metals as currency is, that, as soon as they are adopted by society as a
legal tender, there is superadded to their natural value this new, artificial and
unnatural value. Gold and silver cannot facilitate the purchase of this new value
which is added to themselves,"a mediator is not a mediator of one." USURY is
the characteristic fact of the present system of civilization, and usury depends for
its existence upon this superadded, social, unnatural value, which is given
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
30/54
artificially to the material of the circulating medium. Destroy the value of this
material as money (not its intrinsic value), and you destroy the possibility of
usury, Can this be done so long as the material is gold and silver? No.
Whatever is adopted as the medium of exchange, should be free from all
the above indicated objections. It should serve the purpose of facilitating all
exchanges; it should have no value as money;it should be of such a nature as to
permit nothing marketable, nothing that can be bought or sold, to transcend the
sphere of its mediation. It should exist in such a quantity as to effect all
exchanges which may be desirable. It should be co-existent in time and place
with such property as is destined for the market. It should be sufficiently
abundant, and easy of acquirement, to answer all its legitimate purposes. It
should be capable of being expanded to any extent that may be demanded by
the wants of the community. For if the currency be not sufficiently abundant, itretards instead of facilitating exchanges. On the other hand, this medium of
exchange should be sufficiently difficult of acquirement to keep it within just
limits.
Can a currency be devised which shall fulfill all these conditions? Can a
currency be adopted which shall keep money always just plenty enough, without
suffering it ever to become too plenty? Can such a currency be established on a
firm philosophical foundation, so that we may know beforehand that it will work
well from the very first moment of its establishment? Can a species of money be
found which shall possess everyquality which it is desirable that money should
have, while it possesses noquality which it is desirable that money should not
have? To all these questions, we answer emphatically:YES.
______
THE CURRENCYITS EVILSAND THEIR REMEDY.
Bank bills are doubly guaranteed: on one side, there is the capital of thebank, which is liable for the redemption of the bills in circulation; on the other side
are the notes of the debtors of the bank, which notes are (or ought to be, if the
bank officers exercise due caution and discretion) a sufficient guaranty for all the
bills. For no bills are issued by any bank, except upon notes whereby the
receiver is bound to restore to the bank, after a certain lapse of time, money to
the amount borne on the face of the bills, paying interest thereon for the time his
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
31/54
note has to run. If the notes of the receivers of the bills are good, then the bills
themselves are also good. If we reflect a moment upon these facts, we shall see
that a bank of discount and circulation, is, in reality, two banks in one. There is
one bank which does business on the specie capital really paid in; there is
another, and a very different bank, which does business by issuing bills in
exchange for notes whereby the receivers of the bills bind themselves to pay
back with interest, by a certain time, money to the amount of the bills issued. Let
us now investigate the nature of these two different banks.
The Business of Banking.
Peter goes into the banking business with one dollar capital, and
immediately issues bills to the amount of one dollar and twenty-five cents. Let ussay that he issues five bills, each of which is to circulate for the amount of twenty-
five cents James comes to the bank with four of Peter's bills, and says, here are
four of your new twenty-five-cent notes, which purport to be payable on demand:
and I will thank you to give me a silver dollar for them. Peter redeems the bills,
and, in so doing, pays out his whole capital. Afterward comes John, with the fifth
note, and makes a demand similar to that lately made by James. Peter answers,
slowly and hesitatingly:I regretexceedinglythe force of present
circumstancesbutIjust paidout my whole capitalto JamesI am
underthe painful necessityof requesting youto wait a little longer for your
money. John, at once, becomes indignant, and says, Your bills state on their
face, that you will pay twenty-five cents upon each one of them whenever they
are presented. I present one now; give me the money, therefore, without more
words; for my business is urgent this morning. Peter answers, I shall be in a
condition to redeem my bills by the day after tomorrow; but, for the meanwhile,
my regard for the interest of the public, forces me unwillingly to suspend specie
payments. Suspend specie payments! says John, what other kind of payment,
under heaven, could you suspend? You agree to pay specie, for specie is theonly legal tender, and, when you don't pay that, you don't pay any thingwhen
you don't pay that, you break: why don't you own up at once? But, while I am
about it, I will give you a piece of my mind; this extra note, which you have issued
beyond your capital, is a vain phantom, a hollow humbug, and a fraud; and, as
for your bank, you had better take in your sign, for you have broken."These be
very bitter words," as says the hostess of the Boar's Head Tavern at Eastcheap.
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
32/54
John is right. Peter's capital is all gone; and the note for twenty-five cents
which professes to represent specie in Peter's vaults, represents the tangibility of
an empty vision, the shadow of a vacuum. But which bank is it that is broken? is
it the bank that does business on a specie capital, or the bank which does
business on the notes of the debtors to the bank? Evidently it is the bank that
does business on the specie capital that is broken. It is the specie paying bank
that has ceased to exist.
John understands this very well, notwithstanding his violent language a
moment since; he knows that his is the only bill which Peter has in circulation,
and that Peter owes, consequently, only twenty-five cents; he knows also that the
bank has owing to it, one dollar and twenty-five cents. Peter owes twenty-five
cents, and has owing to him a dollar and twenty-five cents: John feels, therefore,
perfectly safe. What is John's security? is it the specie capital? O no, James hastaken the whole of that. He has for his security the debts which are owing to the
bank. Peter's bank begins now to be placed in a philosophical condition. At first,
he promised to pay one dollar and twenty-five cents in specie, while he actually
possessed only one dollar with which to meet the demands that might be made
on him. How could he make a more unphilosophical promise than that, even if he
should try? Now, he has suspended specie payments, he has escaped from the
unphilosophical situation in which he so rashly placed himself. Peter's bank is still
in full operation; it is by no means broken; his bills are good, guaranteed, and
worthy of considerable confidence: only his bank is now a simple and not a
complex bank, being no longer two banks in one: for the specie paying element
has vanished in infinite darkness.
The Currency.
And here we may notice that Peter has solved, after a rough manner
indeed, one of the most difficult questions in political economy. His bill for twenty-
five cents is currency; and yet it is not based upon specie, nor directly connectedin any way with specie. We would request the reader to be patient with us, and
not make up his mind in regard to our statements until he has read to the end of
the articlethe article is not very long! Light breaks on us here, and we would
endeavor to impart that light to the reader. The security of the bill is legal value,
the security in actual value having been carried away by Jamesthat is, the
security for the bill is the legal claim which the bank has upon the property of its
-
8/7/2019 Equality joshua ingalls
33/54
debtors. We see, therefore, that legal value may be made a basis in certain
cases, for the issue of notes to serve as currency. We see, therefore, the faint
indication of a means whereby we may perhaps emancipate ourselves from the
bondage of hard money, and the worse bondage of paper which pretends to be a
representative of hard money.
Let the reader not be alarmed, we abominate banks that suspend specie
payment, as much as he doesto tell the truth we abominate all banks! The run
of our argument leads us through this desolate valley, but we shall soon emerge
into the clear day. Good may come out of this dark region, although we never
expected to find it here.For our part, however, we will freely confessin
privateto the reader, that we have lately been so accustomed to see good
come out of Nazareth, that we have acquired the habit of never expecting it from
any other quarter. Let us spend a moment, therefore, in exploring this bankingNazareth.
We may notice, in considering a bank that has suspended specie payments;
1. The bank- officers, who are servants of the stockholders; 2. The billswhich are
issued by the bank-officers, and which circulate in the community as money; and,
3. The notes of the debtors of the bank, binding these debtors: which notes,
deposited in the safe, are security for the bills issued. Let us now take for
illustration a non-specie-paying bank that shall be "perfect after its kind;" that is, a
bank whose capital shall be, in actualvalue, literally =0. Suppose th